I stand with Uganda. The goal is to protect their children and prevent the spread of rampant AIDS. The western countries trying to bully them into submission is just pathetic.
I would really like to debate on this topic, but the language difference would be nauseating. Also, I do not know a lot about feminism and am here to learn, but I believe that feminism has blown out of the waters and is unneeded in today's society, as feminism is fighting against phantoms, or rather, ghosts of the past.
Abortion is murder. Also, abortion is literally depriving someone of life, so your argument that the US would be unconstitutional because it is depriving someone of a liberty, abortion is depriving someone of a life.
Would this be nullified by how we interpret God? Because Zeus is limited as a god, as he has to share the powers with other gods? And God is the only God in the universe, and he is all-powerful and perfect and can do anything?
I am in highschool and know only Algebra 1, so this is alien to me BUT, if you multiply 10 by 1 u get 10. If you multiply 10 times whatever that is YOU DONT GET 10 EASIEST DEBATE OF MY LIFEEEEEEEE
The debate is not about the weird habits of Michael Jackson. The debate is about if he is guilty of the sexual abuse of children. I love MJ as a person and his music and it is sad what the media did and still does to him. I will admit, he had a weird mindset when it came to children. It is not ok for a grown man to sleep in the same bed as a child, this is correct, but he is not a pedophile, just weird when it comes to stuff like that.
Also, debating on whether guarantees are real or not is stupid. You would have to destroy the entire foundation of probability. Literally a die roll is a gaurantee.
veganism isnt moral!!! they keel plants and insects!!! they say peace on earth yet they vandalize stores and disrupt the daily lives!!! keeling of animals isnt immoral, its human!!!
I accepted debate, this does not mean I believe in what I defend. I am just a crazy lunatic who accepted the debate without understanding what it meant. Sowwy.
Never mind. Lol. Pro states that just because there isn't a mention of microphones in the bible, it is said to speak clearly to preach the word of God or whatever. But there is mention of celebrating Jesus, so one could argue that even though there is no mention of a date, Christmas is a celebration of Jesus so therefore true bible believers could celebrate the Holiday.
I believe Pro may be right here. He is not saying it should be condemned, which seems to be cons strongest argument. Con is getting most of his votes for his point on omission not being condemnation if I am correct. But pro never stated that Christmas was condemned or should be condemned. Pro is stating that bible believers, people who strictly live a lifestyle based on the bible and what is clearly or not so clearly states, should not celebrate Christmas. His reason for this is really simple and clear to see. He states this because it is not mentioned at all in the bible. There is no reason to infer a celebration like this from the bible. If you were to live strictly according to the bible, then Christmas wouldn't be liable to celebrate in that sort of lifestyle.
The Pro states, "But a soap bubble? Come on, it's just a lump of soap and water. It has no thoughts, feelings or consciousness. It may even not feel pain. It is not a being that can suffer.:. Pro later contradicts themselves with this statement, ": I didn't just burst some old soap bubble. I burst a soap bubble in the kitchen sink floating on dirty pots. She was shiny and bubbling and I could see that she was up to no good.". I ask you to read carefully, how does a being with apparently neither consciousness nor feelings be up to "no good". If the soap bubble was truly "up to no good", then we could argue that the bubble does have a consciousness and maybe even feelings. As a being with neither isn't going to be able to be up to no good. Therefore, we could argue that a bubble could be open to having rights on the basis that they can be up to actions consciously.
I stand with Uganda. The goal is to protect their children and prevent the spread of rampant AIDS. The western countries trying to bully them into submission is just pathetic.
I would really like to debate on this topic, but the language difference would be nauseating. Also, I do not know a lot about feminism and am here to learn, but I believe that feminism has blown out of the waters and is unneeded in today's society, as feminism is fighting against phantoms, or rather, ghosts of the past.
Abortion is murder. Also, abortion is literally depriving someone of life, so your argument that the US would be unconstitutional because it is depriving someone of a liberty, abortion is depriving someone of a life.
Would this be nullified by how we interpret God? Because Zeus is limited as a god, as he has to share the powers with other gods? And God is the only God in the universe, and he is all-powerful and perfect and can do anything?
Before any argument is made, can Pro please state his/her opinion on Radical Feminism, and what exactly it is that Con or Pro would be arguing for?
I am in highschool and know only Algebra 1, so this is alien to me BUT, if you multiply 10 by 1 u get 10. If you multiply 10 times whatever that is YOU DONT GET 10 EASIEST DEBATE OF MY LIFEEEEEEEE
Its like saying retard or fatty is as bad as saying the n-word, its not because your saying one and not the other.
its not because you are saying 1 is 1, and that 0.99999... is 0.99999... .
I believe Michael Jackson is purely and thoroughly innocent, I think he had the mind of a child, while also wanting to be a caring father.
It depends how this debate goes, I have lost this sort of debate twice already, and I am not a master debator ;).
So is con or pro arguing that the NBA should be paid more?
The debate is not about the weird habits of Michael Jackson. The debate is about if he is guilty of the sexual abuse of children. I love MJ as a person and his music and it is sad what the media did and still does to him. I will admit, he had a weird mindset when it came to children. It is not ok for a grown man to sleep in the same bed as a child, this is correct, but he is not a pedophile, just weird when it comes to stuff like that.
Also, debating on whether guarantees are real or not is stupid. You would have to destroy the entire foundation of probability. Literally a die roll is a gaurantee.
this might be a loss for me bcuz im dumb
Isn't it a guarantee that water can only be made up of the elemental compound h20?
veganism isnt moral!!! they keel plants and insects!!! they say peace on earth yet they vandalize stores and disrupt the daily lives!!! keeling of animals isnt immoral, its human!!!
Bro it doesn't matter how disturbing the robots are, they literally will improve QOL no matter how you look at it.
I accepted debate, this does not mean I believe in what I defend. I am just a crazy lunatic who accepted the debate without understanding what it meant. Sowwy.
Thank you! I will take your advice and I am exactly that, a new user. And what you said is true, I do not think this was easily winnable.
Snowball fights count as wars right?
Kind of hard to argue that soap bubbles have rights :p I could've done a bit better with the argument part and addressing parts
Debate will be whether a father figure is more important than a mother figure, vice versa.
Never mind. Lol. Pro states that just because there isn't a mention of microphones in the bible, it is said to speak clearly to preach the word of God or whatever. But there is mention of celebrating Jesus, so one could argue that even though there is no mention of a date, Christmas is a celebration of Jesus so therefore true bible believers could celebrate the Holiday.
I believe Pro may be right here. He is not saying it should be condemned, which seems to be cons strongest argument. Con is getting most of his votes for his point on omission not being condemnation if I am correct. But pro never stated that Christmas was condemned or should be condemned. Pro is stating that bible believers, people who strictly live a lifestyle based on the bible and what is clearly or not so clearly states, should not celebrate Christmas. His reason for this is really simple and clear to see. He states this because it is not mentioned at all in the bible. There is no reason to infer a celebration like this from the bible. If you were to live strictly according to the bible, then Christmas wouldn't be liable to celebrate in that sort of lifestyle.
The changes have been made my friend. Looking forward to learning more about this topic, and looking forward to a great debate!
Of course. I am new to debating competitively, and I am not well educated on the topic, but my goal is to learn and open my mind.
The Pro states, "But a soap bubble? Come on, it's just a lump of soap and water. It has no thoughts, feelings or consciousness. It may even not feel pain. It is not a being that can suffer.:. Pro later contradicts themselves with this statement, ": I didn't just burst some old soap bubble. I burst a soap bubble in the kitchen sink floating on dirty pots. She was shiny and bubbling and I could see that she was up to no good.". I ask you to read carefully, how does a being with apparently neither consciousness nor feelings be up to "no good". If the soap bubble was truly "up to no good", then we could argue that the bubble does have a consciousness and maybe even feelings. As a being with neither isn't going to be able to be up to no good. Therefore, we could argue that a bubble could be open to having rights on the basis that they can be up to actions consciously.
I think this will be an easy win. My opponent has left any chance of an argument completely eradicated by their description.
I mean, he speaks the turth
Two genders:
NPC and Real person